‘Atheist Chicks Are Easy,’ Says Conservative Talk-Show Host

Ughhhh. What the fuck…
And really, that’s insulting to both sides. Atheist girls are easy and Christian guys would totally abandon their deeply held beliefs at the sight of a hot girl.

And what does goth have to do with it? Most goths I’ve known are very into spirituality.

I think all female atheist should flood this stations facebook site   http://www.facebook.com/1110kfab

There is that generalization that conservative christians love to generalize and never understand the complexity of things. 

No, I’m not particularly easy… in fact I’m definitely a hard mode boss

Good on the person whose immediate reaction was “dude, that’s disgusting”

I take that to mean that atheist chicks do the same things that religious ones do, they just don’t feel guilty about it. Oh, and atheist chicks are generally smarter, so the Christian kids should probably look elsewhere for their kicks. I hear Catholic girls are easy.

(And did he stop to consider what he’s saying about the morals of all those Christian kids, champing at the bit for some hot, goth atheists? Wow.)

And let me suggest that Atheist guys are hard….
 

Halleluia Brother!

The slut-shaming is strong in this one. Apparently being more willing to have sex than average is worse, if you’re female, than being willing to pretend to support a debate that you actually don’t, just because you want to get laid, if you’re male. Honest sex if female and too willing = bad. Dishonest sex by obviously very willing males = fine. 

As someone who has visited both sides of this particular comment, let me just say that preachers’ daughters are far easier.

Might just be a semantic issue because I obviously agree with you. It’s offensive to me both because it’s untrue and because it suggests that anyone who enjoys sex is a slut. Even the atheists I know who openly enjoy sex are not “easy.” The implication is offensive to me in a way that calling me a “homosexual” isn’t.

(And did he stop to consider what he’s saying about the morals of all those Christian kids, champing at the bit for some hot, goth atheists? Wow.)

Nah, those kids aren’t responsible for those feelings, being as they are enthralled by the sly devils of secular media. 

Just because I enjoy sex doesn’t make me easy.  I’m choosy as hell and I certainly wouldn’t give it up to anyone who believes in a god.

On another note, is he any relation to Jason?  The slight spelling variation doesn’t hide the fact!!   Yes, I’m joking about it because anything that comes out of that mouth is a non-issue.

We should not making comments about Christian girls being “easy” anymore than Scott Vorhees making comments about atheist girls being “easy”. This is about someone implicating that girls (women) who like sex are somehow less deserving of respect. That is unacceptable. It doesn’t matter which side says it, it is indefensible.

1) the statement of the host is ridiculous, obnoxious, crude and wrong. But to call it wrong or “sick” or whatever you want to connotate wrongness indicates that some rightness exists.

2) your comment: “Oh, and atheist chicks are generally smarter, so the Christian kids should probably look elsewhere for their kicks. I hear Catholic girls are easy.” is just as baseless as his. besides that it seems, and i may be totaly wrong that in the following parenthetical you have misunderstood temptation and acting on that temptation. Temptation is a part of the human condition…morality is (in part) how we respond to those temptations.

Sincerely,
Cary

My 20-year old granddaughter isn’t very tall.  She takes after her grandma who was 4’11” — actually, she still *is* 4’11”.  My granddaughter stars in pornographic movies in Hollywood.  They always dress her in a Catholic schoolgirl’s uniform, to make her look even younger — underage, actually.  You know, pigtails, a pleated plaid skirt, white socks, blouse and (I haven’t watched any of the videos long enough to see this, but I imagine) white panties, too.  I am proud of her.  What an actress.  She isn’t even Catholic.  I mean, nobody taught her to get on her knees and open her mouth.  Good girl.

Now, I’m definitely upset about the ‘atheist chicks are easy’ thing – excuse me, why don’t you just try to get in my pants because I’m ‘easy’ and see how far it gets you – but frankly this is insulting to just everyone involved. The Christians in this scenario, and in other scenarios across the country – got together with the atheists in a spirit of goodwill and cooperation . . . oh wait, sorry, it’s because they wanted to get laid. OH WELL.

And sorry, did the Christian organization hold a food drive or help the homeless? No, they also held the debate. I guess Voorhies will just ignore all the atheist charities out there, as well as all the churches that don’t do jack.

 +1

I’m guessing in the absence of anything intelligent or true to say, you just make a blanket offensive/ridiculous  statement about the group you don’t like. I said ‘offensive/ridiculous’ because I don’t like the slut shaming and sex negativity, but I was acknowledging that his statement was meant as offensive.

Also, lots of women who enjoy sex, and enjoy casual sex don’t necessarily have sex with just anyone. Perhaps it’s just envy that hot atheist women aren’t having sex with him?

Well, of course we’ll probably disagree on that. I do think that atheists tend to have better critical thinking skills and are less likely to believe things just because their parents or pastor told them something. Smarter is too general a term. Rational or logical might fit slightly better.

I understand the offense. I was pretty smart as a Christian and I would have been just as offended as you are. However, Christianity kept me believing some very stupid things and I have grown so much intellectually since I left it behind.
It’s not that they’re born more intelligent or anything, they just don’t have anything impeding their rationality.

Of course it’s baseless. I was making fun of his statement. But it’s worth noting that my comment at least carries the weight of a strong cultural stereotype. Consider what popular music has to say about Catholic girls, from Frank Zappa to Billy Joel. Want to try a little experiment? Make sure your Google family filter is engaged, and search on “catholic school girl”. Compare the results to what you get with “atheist school girl”. Not hard to see where the winds of popular culture are blowing here.

(And if I can add another parenthetical… I think his comment about hot, goth, easy atheist chicks reveals a lot more about where his fantasies lie than it does about the Christians who helped with the debate under discussion.)

I believe that atheists are, on average, smarter than theists, so I have every reason to believe that “atheist chicks” are, as well.

well that is offensive to me a little since iv only been with one guy, and im an atheist,a mother and in some was a goth O.o but alrighty then sweeping generalization!  

 Then how do you define “slut” or “easy” in such a way that they are still considered insults?

What matters to me is his intent, which is very clear.  He wasn’t saying atheist women aren’t afraid to enjoy sex.  He was saying atheist ‘chicks’ are inferior based on his own value system.

There’s not a desk hard enough for my head to hit after reading this…

Umm, maybe because atheists don’t generally like being told that they have little regard for the quality of their partners?

Then why are all the christian teen girls pregnant?

 “Temptation … morality … ”
I think you missed the point, he was talking about sex and about how atheist girls are less hypocritical and therefore “easier” in their minds, enabling them to better judge when and with whom to have sex, and use contraception and protection from VDs (STDs). 

This is why so many religiously blind idiot females end up having abortions or unwanted children who are made to suffer for being illegitimate, or unhappy marriages.

 Now, on average, I do think that the general atheist can beat a general theist in a wide range of subjects. But from that to go to Atheists are inherently smarter is a bit of a… well… leap of faith…

There is, for example, nothing in the word atheist that stop you from being a firm believer in David Icke’s ruling class of shape-shifting super-aliens. Or quantumstate-induced homeopathic remedies based on crystal energies. You can be extremely irrational and still, by definition be an Atheist.

On the same note I find it interesting that he equates female atheists with sexy goth-chicks. Since only a small fraction of female atheists would readily describe themselves as “goth” even in a superficial manner. And in my experience, goths are more likely to go for pagan or wicca beliefs and are therefore not even strictly atheistic. And calling them sexy? Well… um… that’s a matter of personal taste I suppose. I find the stylishness of nunsploitation more titillating, if you ask me. I don’t know what that says about the fantasies of both him and me, though.

I also find it depressing that we’re still stuck with the notion that liking sex makes you “easy”. And being easy equals “low worth”. Yes, using sex as a tool to control people is low. Using sex either as abuse-tool or being abused is even lower. But if the acts are between consenting adults, then why not accept it and let them screw around like happy bonobo’s? Why should I get offended? Jealous, maybe. Since I might feel like I’m missing out. But shaming them for having consenting fun? That would be the worst thing to do.

Those are my watered down two cents on the matter. 🙂

I don’t like what he said, and wish he and people like him wouldn’t say it. However, I don’t think that’s justification for censorship.

Calling a woman “easy” turns her into a sexual object with no choice in the matter.

How so?  If a woman is ‘easy’, how does that suggest she has ‘no choice’?

A woman could sleep with a different person every night of the week and that fact wouldn’t necessarily make her a sexual ‘object’.

Wow, fancy that – people who are ruled by their own sense of self-direction and good sense rather than by irrelevant and unenlightened mores developed by bronze-age goat-herders.

Bingo.

The biggest insult here is their attempt to assert their sexual ethics as being the ‘objectively right’ ones.

Which is precisely what I see so many believers try to do with everything ~ despite the fact that they can’t justify the ‘objective’ claim.

To me, this is the most infuriating aspect of all such Christian attacks on everything that isn’t Christian.

Considering his July 4th post on his radio show website is “40 best quotes form Ronald Reagan”, that his June 28th post is decrying SCOTUS upholding most provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act, that his public facebook posts decry “leftwing hack-job[s]”, I’m thinking there is no misnomer here.  Conclusion based on observation from the horse’s mouth is hardly heresay.  

He’s on an AM station in Nebraska! I think life has punished this guy enough!

I never said sleeping with lots of people makes her a sexual object. I have nothing against people having sex and having sex with many different people. My point is that the word “easy” is an insult. Similarly, I have nothing against homosexuality, but the word “fag” is an insult.
It turns her into an object because it is from the perspective of the man who assumes he can have her. “She’s easy” also means “I could definitely have sex with her.” While it doesn’t automatically mean she has no choice, it does lead in that direction. When a guy assumes that he can have sex with a girl before he even asks and when he assumes that he can have sex with her just because she had sex with a few guys before him, that makes him less likely to accept it if she says “no.”
Now from the girl’s perspective, she might have had sex with a few different guys, but she chose to do it and she enjoyed it. That’s fine. But when the guy is calling her easy, it implies that she will sleep with anyone. She might have rejected other guys, but this guy doesn’t know that. All he cares about is that he knew she had sex with a few other guys, so therefore she’ll totally have sex with him. He’s not thinking about the possibility of rejection because she’ll supposedly sleep with anyone, so he’s less likely to accept it if he is rejected.

That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a long time.

The “easy” remark is telling. I don’t think Mr. voorhies would find it very easy to sleep with an atheist chick. I gotta think they’d see right through him and his controlling, patriarchal misogyny. Maybe the comment is just sour grapes. Some cute goth atheist wouldn’t give him the time of day and he’s lashing out the best way he knows how.

Being smarter on average doesn’t mean that all atheists are smarter, or that all theists are dumber.

The suggestion that atheists tend to be smarter is more than  a leap of faith. It is supported by a good deal of evidence looking at IQ and education, and indeed, makes sense. Most atheists became such through reflection and analysis- the tools of intelligence. Becoming an atheist is like becoming a physicist or becoming an author: a filtering mechanism that tends to concentrate people of higher intelligence. On the opposite end of the spectrum, people with lower intelligence tend to think less about their beliefs, and are more likely to stick with what they grew up with- which is usually religion.

Fred, the thing that strikes me about Mr. Voorhies’ and Don Imus’s comments are that they dehumanize the subjects of their comments. They talk like the particular people the are talking about are less (less value, less human) than themselves because they are different in their beliefs, values and outlooks. That is what makes me furious.

What he said was offensive, but that doesn’t mean we need to take offense. Doing so just feeds his ego- people like that get off on getting a rise out of others.

We should take offense when somebody we respect says something offensive. That is rightfully disturbing. But in this case? Does anybody here really think this guy’s ideas are even worth the respect of finding them offensive? What he said is better described as ridiculous or absurd. And I think the correct response is to mock it, to ridicule his lack of intelligence, his lack of wit, and his lack of grace. Quite simply, he’s an intellectually challenged boor, and you have to wonder about any radio station that would hire him.

I think I wanted to throw up and laugh at the same time. You should write dark comedy.

Atheists chicks are  easy? Pffff….

You’ll never get an atheist shrieking, “Oh God! Oh Lord! Oh Jesus! Oh God!” while they’re discovering their sexuality…

Let’s see how much of a sense of humor the evangelical crowd has with this one…

And devout girls know never to “fake” it. It is wrong to take the name of the Almighty in vain…

^^Exactly what I was trying to say 🙂
We’re not saying it’s a bad thing to have lots of sex with many people. We’re saying that “easy” has a much worse meaning than that, so calling someone easy is an insult.

 Below is an Open Letter sent to President Milliken of the University of Nebraska on the morning of July 13, 2012.  KFAB may be a private radio station free to speak and behave in any manner it chooses, but this station has strong ties, through the broadcast of Nebraska football, to the University.  Speak up, let the president know, that such ties with prejudice and hostility are not acceptable.

President James B.
Milliken

University of
Nebraska

(402) 472-8636

president@nebraska.edu

July 13, 2012

President Milliken,

On July 10, 2012, the University
of Nebraska’s Director of University Relations, Tim Kaldahl, spoke publicly, on
1110 AM radio KFAB, with the station’s morning talk radio host Mr. Scott
Voorhees.  Mr. Voorhees’ program for the
day (link to the program below) was titled “Godbusters” and throughout the
program Mr. Voorhees took every opportunity available to him to find ways to
“tweak atheists this morning.”  During
his interview with Mr. Kaldahl the DJ “absolved” the University of its
responsibility for permitting the presence of the upcoming Midwest Freethought
Conference scheduled on the UNO campus, August 3-5.  In doing so Mr. Voorhees described the
University of Nebraska as functioning as a binary entity referring to “that”
University of Nebraska which works to benefit the community, as opposed to the
other University of Nebraska that permits such horrific things as a Secular
Student Alliance and the upcoming Freethought conference.  Mr. Kaldahl failed to defend the Secular
Student Alliance, and diversity on campus in general, and instead chose to
focus only on “that” other part of the University of Nebraska in which
“hundreds of students go out into the community and do service learning
projects, renovate homes, work at non-profit agencies.”  It is important to see how clearly Mr.
Voorhees sees secular, non-theistic students as apart from this more virtuous
idyllic university, and it is doubly important that you see how clearly your
Director of University Relations failed to challenge this prejudice.

Following this discussion with
this member of your administration, Mr. Voorhees then conversed with a student
from the University, the past president of the University’s Secular Student
Alliance, an individual identified only as Luke.  During this brief conversation the show’s
host was consistently dismissive of his guest, accusing him of failing to
contribute to the good of the University, the community, repeating how the
student and his organization had failed to build houses or provide well-being
to the poor and homeless.  Then finally
he closed the interview by informing the student that the only reason the
Secular Student Alliance on the University’s campus had been recognized and
supported by the campus community is because “atheist chics are easy”.  He would return to this theme toward the end
of the program, when he alluded to Sandra Fluke, the “girl who went to
Georgetown University and said someone around here needs to pay for my contraception
or my abortion.”  He connected her to
“militant atheism” seeing her, I must assume, as Mr. Limbaugh did, as a “slut”,
a “prostitute”, like he describes the women of the secular student community as
a whole.

Mr. Voorhees is a substantial
voice within the KFAB broadcasting network, the University of Nebraska’s
affiliate network for its football programming. 
His attacks upon the atheist/secular community in general, and its
female members in particular, are prejudiced and hostile and in no way should
be supported by the University of Nebraska. 
As president of this public institution you should be taking action to
cut ties with this individual, this network; or do you really want the
University of Nebraska, and Nebraska football to be tied to such prejudice?

How would you react if Mr.
Voorhees had attacked the African-American community in such a way?  Or Catholic students?  Jews? 
Muslims?  What would you do today,
what would the University of Nebraska and Nebraska football do today, if Mr.
Voorhees had said “black girls are easy”, “Catholic girls are sluts”?  Would the University continue its
financial/media ties with KFAB and Mr. Voorhees in such a situation?  I think not, but it is your decision.

Thank You.

Wayne Moore

Missoula Area Secular Society

http://bit.ly/NmcGaG
 
Interview with Tim Kaldahl: 0:00 to 6:30
Voorhees’ comments on UNO hosting of secular event: 6:30 to 9:20
Interview with secular student: 9:20 to 14:32
Primary offensive remarks: 14:16 to 14:32
Reference to Sandra Fluke and the Georgetown/Limbaugh situation: 53:20 to 54:25

Can you explain what you mean by this? I am an atheist libertarian.

Ah, the explanation is that you’re an asshole.

See we managed to skip all the back and forth arguing, you trying to defend libertarian dogma etc., and skip straight to the ultimate libertarian argument.

I’d take Jason over this guy.

(What, I can’t be the only horror fan who just wants to take that poor, broken man-child and hug the hell out of him.)

“You’re an asshole” is not the ultimate argument, libertarian or otherwise. It’s simply an observation one makes about someone who declares people stupid based on nothing more than a general idea of their political leanings.

Crap, I guess I have to stop being an atheists. Goth chick just aren’t my style. 

What a misogynistic bigot.

I mean really all anyone has to do to prove the inherent stupidity of libertarianism is mention global warming.

Way to go, Mr. Enlightenment! …You realize that making assumptions about ANY woman’s sexual habits is rude, right?  Not to mention some of us are BOTH preachers’ daughters AND atheists?  (The mind, it boggles!) Bravo, you champion of feminist atheism, you.